April 2011

Back in 2008 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, “The price of oil is at the doorstep. Four dollars plus per gallon for oil is attributed to two oil men in the White House.”

Oddly enough, Pelosi is now conspicuously silent about gas prices. No public comments. No press conferences. No interviews.

Here’s a question for you: If Nancy Pelosi blamed high gas prices on “the oil men in the White House” back in 2008, shouldn’t she blame today’s high gas prices on the snake oil men in the White House?

Source: CNS News

- by editor | 23 comments | Share Link

This may not be a great revelation – we always assumed he was a bit of a sleazeball – but new information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act reveals that government and university officials didn’t much care for Barack Obama’s father.


"Hey, son, check out the bazoombas on that one over there."

The Daily Mail UK has the unsavory specifics:

Though the proof that he was actually born in Hawaii may silence some critics, a new, rather more interesting side of his life has emerged – that his father Barack Obama senior was a serial womaniser and polygamist who government and university officials were trying to force out of the country.

Obama senior married Stanley Ann Dunham, a white student from Kansas, not only when he was said to have already been married to a woman in Kenya, but at a time when interracial marriages were still illegal in many parts of the U.S.
Documents obtained from the U.S. immigration service paint a picture of a man who ‘had an eye for the ladies’ and, according to his file, had to be warned several times to stay away from girls at the university.

Heather Smathers, a investigative journalist with the Arizona Independent, obtained the files through a Freedom of Information request.

A memo from a University of Hawaii foreign student advisor said that Obama senior had ‘been running around with several girls since he first arrived here and last summer she cautioned him about his playboy ways. Subject replied that he would “try” to stay away from the girls.’

It also considered his earlier Kenya marriage as a grounds to deny him a visa extension but concluded that ‘polygamy was not an excludable or deportation charge’.

He is further described as ‘a slippery character’, and his relationships with ‘several women’ are discussed and investigated, while questions about his ‘marital problems’ are repeatedly raised.

Another immigration memo, from June 1964, records that Harvard officials were trying ‘to get rid of him’ and ‘couldn’t seem to figure out how many wives he had’.

A philandering father and a mother named Stanley. That’s enough to screw up any kid.

Source: Daily Mail UK

- by editor | 20 comments | Share Link

First time unemployment numbers continue to hover over 400,000 per week. We’re this close to a double dip recession. The debt is soaring. The dollar in sinking. Far as we’re concerned, the only question that arises from this new Marist poll is this:


Mission accomplished: America's economy destroyed

What the hell is wrong with the 43% who don’t disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy.

McClatchyDC.com has the details:

Public disapproval of President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy reached a new high in mid-April, according to a new McClatchy-Marist poll, as gasoline prices neared $4 a gallon and Washington lawmakers fought a bitter battle over the federal budget.

Some 57 percent of registered voters said they disapproved of Obama’s economic management, while only 40 percent approved. That’s the lowest score of his presidency.

“These numbers spell political trouble,” said Lee Miringoff, the director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in New York, which conducted the survey. “To get re-elected with a 57 percent disapproval rating would be a very tall order.”

Meanwhile, public pessimism is growing: Fifty-seven percent of U.S. adults said they thought the worst was yet to come for the U.S economy, up sharply from 39 percent in January. And 71 percent said the nation was still in a recession, even though the slump, which began in December 2007, officially ended in June 2009.

Yes. The worst is yet to come. It’s more than a year and a half until the next election and no Republicans stand out yet.

Source: McClatchyDC.com

- by editor | 7 comments | Share Link

If the Justice Department weren’t in on this scam, they’d be investigating the bait and switch tactics the Obama administration uses on the oil industry. First you take billions of dollars from an oil company for an offshore lease, then you come up with an absurd excuse to stop them from drilling.

Fox News explores the latest news in the Obama administration’s never ending quest for energy independence:


Could the EPA have come up with a goofier justification to stop the drilling?

Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.

Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”

You won’t believe what the EPA is worried about. It said Shell didn’t factor emissions from an icebreaker into its calculation of the project’s greenhouse gas emissions and that those emissions could negatively impact the people living in the nearest village.

The nearest village has 245 residents and lies 70 miles from the proposed drilling site.

Meanwhile, we’re lending billions of dollars to Brazil to do deep water drilling and billions more to Colombia to build a state-of-the-art oil refinery. And, of course, we’re borrowing those billions from China.

Upon further consideration, we take it back. This isn’t bait and switch. It’s a giant check kiting scam.

Source: Fox News

- by editor | 6 comments | Share Link

Apparently someone at MSNBC decided they should follow Rachel Maddow’s example and come out of the closet. As extremists, that is.

No more pussyfooting around claiming they’re moderates. They’ve even given up claims that they’re merely liberal and gone straight to extremist.

The new ad campaign gives each of the hosts a chance to one-up the others by revealing just how out there they are.

Lawrence O’Donnell doesn’t think Barack Obama is liberal enough. Probably doesn’t think Stalin was, either.

Don’t loan Rachel Maddow money. Since she seems to think the country’s finances are in great shape we’d hate to see what her checking balance looks like.

Ed Schultz is a regular guy. A Cheers bar, neighborhood diner kind of guy. Oh, yeah, and a guy who hates big business. Pray to God you don’t get stuck with the stool next to him at the diner.

Poor Chris Matthews. Looks like all the other good commercial ideas were taken, so he got stuck with the birther concept.

- by editor | 19 comments | Share Link

Wal-Mart has ended it short, ugly experiment with political correctness. The retail giant stopped selling rifles, shotguns and ammo in hundreds of its stores in the United States five years ago, but has seen the error of its ways.


Next time Janet Napolitano wants to load up with ammo, she can do it at Wal-Mart

The Wall Street Journal scopes out the story:

The world’s largest retailer stopped selling hunting rifles and bullets at all but a third of its U.S. stores five years ago, citing diminishing sales. It is now restoring them to hundreds of locations, bringing the total to nearly half of its more than 3,600 U.S. namesake stores, as part of a larger push to restore “heritage categories” of merchandise such as fishing rods and bolts of sewing fabric that it removed in an attempt to go upscale that backfired.

“We made a business decision to sell them in certain stores because we have realized the appeal was perhaps broader than we thought,” said Wal-Mart spokesman David Tovar. “But we are committed to doing it as responsibly as possible, as always, in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws.”

The Bentonville, Ark., retailer is in the midst of its worst-ever U.S. slump—with seven consecutive quarters of sales declines at stores open at least one year—and has begun a major retooling of its U.S. operations in a bid to go back to basics and re-establish the formula of broad assortments and “everyday low prices” that late founder Sam Walton made famous.

Back in December, 2010, the Department of Homeland Security made the following announcement:

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano today announced the expansion of the Department’s national “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign to hundreds of Walmart stores across the country – launching a new partnership between DHS and Walmart to help the American public play an active role in ensuring the safety and security of our nation.

Now that Wal-Mart is once again selling guns, perhaps they should update the slogan to, “If you see something, shoot something.”

Source: Wall Street Journal, Department of Homeland Security

- by editor | 12 comments | Share Link

There are days when this blogging business is like shooting fish in a barrel. On second thought, we better not talk about shooting any fish in this story because, well, that might violate their rights.

The American Spectator has the story of animal activists gone wild:


Hop and change comes to the Australian legal system

An Australian academic, Dr. John Hadley of the University of Western Sydney, has broken new legal ground by suggesting the setting up of courts to protect property rights for animals.

No. Really? An academic came up with this concept? Who ever would have suspected.

Certain difficulties seem to lie in the way, however. How will Counsel take instructions from clients? How will questions of undue influence be avoided in the case of less intelligent creatures? (Wombats and the like are not generally distinguished by their brain-power.) Who will have locus standi in cases of sheep owned by farmers? Should the creatures concerned decide to bequeath their property, how are wills going to be witnessed and proved valid?

Another problem: koalas are said to be permanently drunk on the alcohol fumes from the eucalyptus-leaves that form their diet. Here again forensic difficulties may arise.

There is nothing more magnificent in nature than seeing a kangaroo gracefully bounding across the Australian outback. And nothing more asinine than seeing an animal activist chasing behind to inform it of its rights.

Source: The American Spectator

- by editor | 15 comments | Share Link

We really need some kind of scorecard. Because we can’t keep up with the rapidly growing list of things Democrats define as racist. For example, according to Ed Schultz it’s now racist to question Obama’s intelligence.

Here’s what the genius said Wednesday on his MSNBC show:

You mean to tell me that [Trump’s] questioning the academic prowess of one of the smartest presidents we’ve ever had? Mr. Trump, when you start getting your advice from all of the special, special Republican advisers that we’ve seen step to the plate in the past instead of Jerome Corsi. Dude, you could do better than that… This is what the Republican Party stands for, though: racism. I think Donald Trump is a racist.

Based on what, Ed, have you determined that Obama is “one of the smartest Presidents we’ve ever had?” His extemporaneous speaking skills without a Teleprompter? The incredible success of his economic plan?

Ronald Reagan can be called stupid with impunity. Ditto for George Bush. But call Barack Obama unintelligent and you’re a racist.

Is it racist to question Ed Schultz’ intelligence?

- by editor | 27 comments | Share Link

As the United States dollar swirls down the drain of international finance, the House of Representatives has its eye on bigger battles: Should the Capital Cafeteria be using Styrofoam cups or paper cups?


Democrats fear the dreaded Styrofoam cup of death. Republicans fear spending money. We fear they're all morons.

The Media Research Center has the vital details:

As part of Green is Universal week, NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell highlighted a fight between Republicans and Democrats over the use of Styrofoam in the House cafeterias. On Thursday’s Today show, O’Donnell reported, “Many Democrats are boiling mad because Republicans, now in charge of building operations, put a fork in the bio-degradable utensils Democrats had picked.”

O’Donnell went on to relay the concerns of Democratic Congressman George Miller as she noted that he had alarmingly tweeted to Republicans, “Stop serving carcinogens to constituents,” and then aired a soundbite of Miller (while he was brandishing a Styrofoam cup) hyperbolically exclaiming: “This cup is a very expensive cup. It’s very expensive to the environment, it’s very expensive to our energy policy and it’s very expensive, in some cases, to the health of individuals.”

Styrofoam causes cancer? We’re not saying it’s not true, just that we’ve never heard that one. Of course, according to “researchers” everything causes cancer, so what the hell. Why not Styrofoam, too.

However O’Donnell did present the GOP side of the story as she reported that the House composting program, first implemented by a then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was costing the taxpayers “a half million dollars a year” and added: “Many diners complained those compostable cups, forks, and spoons broke easily and even melted in hot soup or coffee.”

Absolutely. We can’t tell you how many times we’ve lamented having to use compostable cups. Far as we’re concerned, and we think you’ll agree, carcinagenic cups give your lunch a special tang that compostable cups just can’t match.

Good lord, these people are complete buffoons. We think we could use compostable drink right about now.

Source: Media Research Center

- by editor | 13 comments | Share Link

This is not the kind of news Al Gore likes to read as his personal chef is preparing his eggs benedict. No, not at all. Turns out there is a global warming consensus, but it’s not the one Gore was hoping for.


Al Gore personally leads the fight against global warming by using three 30-inch HD monitors instead of four

CNS News offers up the details:

Most of the human race does not see global warming as a serious threat, according to a Gallup poll released last week that surveyed individuals in 111 countries.

Respondents were asked: “How serious of a threat is global warming to you and your family?” They were given the options of anwering: not at all serious, not very serious, somewhat serious or very serious.

Worldwide, only 42 percent told Gallup they believed global warming was either a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat.

As highly-trained experts in advanced mathematics, we have been able to determine that that means 58% don’t think it’s a serious threat.

In the United States, 53 percent of those surveyed think global warming is a “somewhat serious” or “very serious” threat. Gore shouldn’t celebrate those numbers, though, because that’s down from 63% in 2008.

Only 10% of the residents of Somaliland think global warming is a somewhat serious or very serious threat.

Greece is is the nation most afraid of global warming. Perhaps that nation’s economic woes can be attributed to the fact that 87% of Greeks spent all their money on Gore’s snakeoil.

Source: CNS News

- by editor | 11 comments | Share Link

The guy who’s broken every campaign pledge he ever made is now calling Donald Trump a “carnival barker.”

Here’s what Obama said about his would-be opponent in Wednesday’s birth certificate press conference:

I’ve provided additional information today about the site of my birth. Yes, I was in fact born in Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961. Over the past 2 1/2 years I have watched with puzzlement this controversy. Normally I wouldn’t comment on this. But the prominent news story was about my birth certificate, not the budget. I want to make a larger point. We have enormous issues we are facing. Which will generate huge and fierce debates. We are not going to be able to come together in a bipartisan fashion if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers. I have every confidence that the US will come out on top.

We assume that when President Obama called Donald Trump a carnival barker, he doesn’t actually think Trump stands on the midway and lures suckers in to play rigged games of chance.

Based on Obama’s performance as President, we’re not sure if it’s supposed to be an insult or a compliment.


- by editor | 5 comments | Share Link

Before he became a small time blogger, BigFurHat from iOwnTheWorld.com was a big time graphic designer. We know this because he told us so (OK, that and we’ve seen his portfolio.)

Here’s what he says about the newly-released Obama birth certificate:

“I can emphatically tell you that this document is not merely a scan of a document that has been uploaded to the internet. This is a document that has been either put together or taken apart prior to the upload, and even Charles Johnson would have to admit that.”

When BigFurHat, a self-acknowledged PhotoShop and Illustrator expert, shows us incontrovertible evidence that Obama’s 1961 birth certificate shows signs of being created with computer programs that didn’t exist in 1961, we have to listen.

Well, we try to listen, but BigFurHat’s voice is kind of drowned out by the sound of our inner voices screaming, “Dan Rather!”

We’d try to explain this stuff, but we wouldn’t have a clue what we were talking about. And we try to save that for our political commentary.

Watch this video. And read BigFurHat’s analysis over at iOwnTheWorld.com.

Hmmmmmmm. What do you think?


Source: iOwnTheWorld.com

- by editor | 85 comments | Share Link

It was a battle of the Georges on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Wednesday. Former President George W. Bush appeared on the program to promote a charity bike ride. Host George Stephanopoulos asked him about the rumored Panetta-Gates-Patraeus job swaps. Bush had not yet heard the breaking news.

Bush: Is this gossip or truth?

Stephanopoulos: No, it’s truth. We are reporting it this morning. It is done. It’s being announced later this week.

Bush: Just because you’re reporting it, as you might recall, doesn’t necessarily mean… (laughter)

Stephanopoulos: I’m fairly confident on this one this morning Mr. President.

You can’t blame Bush for being skeptical. That’s what Dan Rather said about those Air National Guard documents, too.

- by editor | 17 comments | Share Link

We’re always told by our liberal friends that Barack Obama is brilliant and as as proof of that brilliance they pull out the fact that he was president of the Harvard Law Review.

Uh-oh. Now a new article calls that evidence into question.


Barack Obama became President o the Harvard Law Review thanks to affirmative action. He became an effeminate male model all on his own.

Before our liberal readers start saying, “Yeah, where’d you get that? Fox News?” we should point out that it comes from the Harvard Crimson. And we assume we can trust the liberal Harvard Crimson to report accurately on the liberal Harvard Law School.

Here’s how the Crimson describes the circumstances that may have lead to Barack Obama’s rise to prominence:

In 1981, all 80-some editors except one were white, and it would be another decade before the Review elected its first black president, Sen. Barack H. Obama, (D-Ill.) Fewer than a dozen of the editors on the Review were women, although Susan R. Estrich, the law professor and Democratic political operative, served as the Review’s president in 1977.

It was then that the saga of the Law Review’s affirmative action program began, when the editors adopted a race- and gender-conscious policy by a 45 to 39 vote, to the vehement opposition of some faculty members.

Several months of intense debate and negotiations ensued between the Review and the faculty, at the end of which the Review began for the first time considering factors other than merit in choosing its members.


Young Barack Obama seems to have majored in posing for photos

Prior to 1981, law students could join the Review either by being among the top five students in their first-year sections—each class used to be divided into four sections—or through a combination of their grades and their scores on an annual writing competition, a process designed to preserve absolute objectivity.

But the 1981 editors felt it necessary for their admission policy to take into account the underrepresentation of minorities and women.

Under their modified plan, the top four students in each first-year section would still be elected to the Review, but the fifth spot would be reserved for the top-scoring minority student among the top 25, and if no such minority student existed, the fifth spot would go to the woman with the highest grades.

Two days after the adoption of this policy, three editors—including one woman—resigned in protest.

In response, the Review’s leadership convened to reconsider their plan, opting for a non-quota system that would merely take race and gender into consideration. But despite the modification, the Review continued to encounter opposition from students, alumni, and most importantly, from the faculty.

The first Affirmative Action President. We’ll leave it up to you to figure out if we’re talking about the Harvard Law Review or the United States of America.

Read the whole article at the link immediately below.

Source: Harvard Law Review

- by editor | 68 comments | Share Link

Muslim clerics in Indonesia have outlawed a popular dance known as the poco poco. Aging sexpot Charo and Italian President Berlusconi reportedly breathed big sighs of relief that that neither the coochie coochie nor the bunga bunga were outlawed.

DailyIndia.com has the story:

Islamic clerics in Malaysia are firm on their ban on ‘poco-poco’ a popular dance form, claimed of having Christian roots, despite the country’s National Fatwa Council’s decision to allow the dance.

The Perak Fatwa council’s Mufti, Harussani Zakaria, said the state fatwa council was convinced that the dance contained elements of Christianity and spirit worship.

“We will not back down on our decision. It is final,” the Star quoted Zakaria, as saying.

Quick. Someone check with the Muslim clerics in American Samoa. We want to make sure the poco poco is still legal in Pago Pago.

Here’s a video of Indonesian school teachers doing the poco poco. When the dance begins you can hear the audience go into a Christian proselytizing frenzy.


Source: DailyIndia.com

- by editor | 16 comments | Share Link

What? No golf?

by editor on April 28, 2011

The President’s schedule was so jam-packed yesterday that there wasn’t even enough time to squeeze in a round of golf.

But rest assured that he took care of the important things – taping an appearance on Oprah and attending three campaign fundraisers in the Big Apple.

And in between he reduced unemployment, saved the economy and personally assassinated Muammar Gadaffi.

CBS White House correspondent Mark Knoller was so amazed at Obama’s dereliction of duty that he tweeted about it.


- by editor | 10 comments | Share Link

Democrats can only look at the results of this poll and say, “Crap. There goes a generation of indoctrinating school children down the drain.”

USA Today has the results of its latest Gallup poll:


The President is disappointed in the American people. Very disappointed.

By more than 3-to-1, those surveyed say the deficit stems from too much spending, rather than too little tax revenue.

When it comes to solving the deficit problem, about half of Americans, 48%, want to do it entirely or mostly with spending cuts. Some 37% support an equal mix of spending cuts and tax increases; 11% prefer mostly tax hikes.

Republicans hold a 12-percentage-point edge over Democrats as the party better able to handle the budget, and a 5-point edge on the economy in general. On a list of six issues, Democrats hold a narrow advantage only in handling health care.

At least the Democrats are consistent. In addition to running a huge deficit in the economy, they run a huge deficit in the polls.

Source: USA Today

- by editor | 4 comments | Share Link

Ed Schultz achieved the almost unachievable on Friday, April 22. On that night he lost a remarkable 61% of Rachel Maddow’s lead-in audience. And it’s not like her ratings were anything to brag about.


Ed Schultz: High hopes, low ratings

As you can see in the following chart, MSNBC was rolling along with decent ratings – by MSNBC standards, that is – until Schultz hit the airwaves. Then it appears that leftists across America jumped for their remote controls and tuned in somewhere else. Anywhere else.

Time     Host     Total Audience
5 pm     Matthews     707,000
6 pm     Cenk     613,000
7 pm     Matthews     601,000
8 pm     O’Donnell     819,000
9 pm     Maddow     959,000
10 pm     Schultz     375,000
11 pm     O’Donnell (rerun)     374,000

Not only does Ed lose 61% of Maddow’s audience, but the 11:00 rerun of Lawrence O’Donnell’s 8 p.m. show falls just 1,000 viewers short of Ed’s total. And the rerun isn’t even in prime time hours.

We’d call this an embarrassing performance, but it’s worse than that. Wholesale rejection by MSNBC’s niche audience may just be a one-way ticket back to North Dakota for Big Eddie.

Our advice? Don’t sign any long term leases, Ed.

Source: Media Bistro

- by editor | 41 comments | Share Link

You may be surprised to learn that no one has died from radiation at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. And that must be killing anti-nuclear activists, because nothing would do more for their cause than nuclear radiation raining death down on thousands.


No one's died. No one's sick. Well, that's not quite true. The anti-nuke people are pretty sick about it.

The Australian, one of the largest newspapers down under, has the unexpected story:

Amazingly, despite the devastation of the site, there have been no radiation-related deaths at Fukushima so far, and only two workers have been hospitalised as a precaution.

The only people to have perished at Fukushima were a man who became trapped in the console of a crane during the earthquake and two who were swept away by the tsunami. The entire toll from the earthquake, remember, is estimated at about 25,000.

While it is not yet over, and radioactivity continues to come out of the devastated plant, the good news is that there are still precisely zero deaths attributable to the release of radiation at the plant, and on the basis of doses received, zero are expected.

No effects on health or significant contamination cases have been identified among the general public evacuated from the area, despite the fact the accident has devastated the plant, and involved fires, explosions, and releases of radioactivity. If there is a single lesson from Chernobyl for the Japanese, it’s that in the years to come misinformation is likely to be more dangerous than radiation.

So just as more people died in Teddy Kennedy’s car than at Three Mile Island, more people died in a crane at Fukushima than died of radiation.

Source: The Australian

- by editor | 10 comments | Share Link

How do these guys say this stuff with straight faces? The value of the American dollar has been destroyed in the last two years, yet Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is now defending his “strong dollar policy.”

AFP has the hilarious highlights of the Treasury Secretary’s stand-up routine:


"I just flew in from Washington, DC and, boy, are my arms tired. Take my wife. Please. I have a strong dollar policy. Thank you Thank you very much. I'll be here all week."

US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner vowed Tuesday that the United States would never follow a strategy to weaken the US dollar.”Our policy has been and will always be, as long as I will be in office, that a strong dollar is in the interest of the country,” Geithner said at a New York conference organized by the Council of Foreign Relations.

“We will never embrace a strategy to weaken the dollar.”

It was the first time this year that Geithner had publicly proclaimed a US strong-dollar policy, a mantra of treasury secretaries for more than a decade.

The words “Tim Geithner” and “strong dollar” should never be used in the same sentence.

Tim Geither is to strong dollar as Jeffrey Dahmer is to vegan.

Source: AFP

- by editor | 18 comments | Share Link

Jerry Della Femina is a legend in the advertising business. He created some of the nation’s most famous campaigns back in the 60s and 70s. He was the inspiration for the TV series “Mad Men.” And now he’s had it up to here with President Obama.


Legenary ad man Jerry Della Femina wrote the best book EVER on the advertising business

The New York Post explains Della Femina’s epiphany:

Legendary ad man Jerry Della Femina blames President Obama for having to sell his Hamptons restaurant. In a column for the East Hampton Independent, the inspiration behind the “Mad Men” series says that in 2008, he “decided that this country was falling in love with an attractive, great-speechmaking hustler/socialist” and that he was “dropping out” and would sell off “my houses, my advertising business, my newspaper and my restaurant.” Della Femina sealed a deal this week to sell his Hamptons eatery to the owners of the Houston’s chain.

He writes, “I’m just not ready to have my wealth redistributed. I’m not ready to pay more tax money than the next guy because I provide jobs and because I work a 60-hour week and I earn more than $250,000 a year.” He also told The Post’s Selim Algar, “I truly believe we are headed for disaster. I’m going into gold and silver.”

If you’ve never read Della Femina’s book, “From Those Wonderful Folks Who Gave You Pearl Harbor,” find an old copy on Amazon.com and buy it.

His exploits in the ad business are guaranteed to make you laugh out loud.

Source: New York Post

- by editor | 9 comments | Share Link

Whenever Mrs Editor complains about one of the Editor’s many annoying habits, his stock response is, “Psychologists say a person’s basic personality is established by the age of five.”

Seen in that light, this childhood photo of Barack Obama and his mother Ann Dunham seems to explain a lot. Even as a child Barack Obama was a pirate.

You know, a swashbuckler whose philosophy was, “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.” A scoundrel willing to sail under a flag other than his country’s. In burying treasure that will never again be found. In making his enemies walk the plank.

Yes, the analogy holds up pretty well until you get to the part about Obama bowing to kings. We can’t explain that.


- by editor | 46 comments | Share Link

Forbes magazine did its annual “Worst Cars on the Road” review and you may be disturbed to learn that you own nine of the eleven on the list.

Don’t run out to the garage looking for them. You only own them because Barack Obama and Tim Geithner “invested”$80 billion of your tax dollars in General Motors and Chrysler.

2011-dodge nitro

Don't you find it somehow appropriate that a car named the Dodge Nitro is a bomb?

Here’s the bad news from Forbes:

… with three exceptions–the Mercedes-Benz S550, Smart Fortwo and Nissan Titan–all of the cars on this year’s list of the Worst Cars on the Road are (still) made by domestic companies. That includes the Dodge Dakota, Chevy Tahoe Hybrid and Chrysler Town & Country. The only American car company with zero vehicles on the list? Ford.

Ford? You mean the same Ford that declined your tax dollars? The same Ford that now has the largest share of the new car market? The same Ford that is reporting record profits?

Yes, that Ford.

Oh, by the way, just in case you were wondering, here’s the complete list of the Loser Eleven: Cadillac Escalade, Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid, Dodge Nitro, Jeep Wrangler, Dodge Dakota, Mercedes Benz S550, Chrysler Town and Country, Chevrolet Colorado, Chevrolet Aveo, Jeep Liberty and Nissan Titan.

Source: Forbes

- by editor | 29 comments | Share Link

Good lord. The man’s ego is bigger than his biceps used to be. Arnold Schwarzenegger can’t be president of the United States so he wants to become president of the European Union.

arnold schwarzenegger before and after

Consider this a visual metaphor for California before and after Arnold

Dawn.com has the story:

The Austrian-born former body builder, 63, at loose ends as he tries to figure out what his next act should be, reportedly is being advised by aides to return to his native Europe to run for the EU presidency, Newsweek reported.

“In the next few years, the EU will be looking for a much more high-profile president — somebody who can unify Europe,” Schwarzenegger’s chief of staff Terry Tamminen told the magazine.

“The French won’t want a German, and the Germans won’t want an Italian. How about a European-born person who went off to America and — could return to be the Washington or Jefferson of a new unified Europe?” said Tamminen, all but nominating his former boss for the job.

We haven’t heard of any Europeans clamoring for President Arnold, but we must admit it does make a certain amount of sense.

Arnold has experience running a socialist state, spending billions of dollars more than he brings in, and ignoring the fiscal precipice toward which he’s racing.

He may be exactly what the Europeans are looking for.

Source: Dawn.com

- by editor | 21 comments | Share Link

Anyone here speak Spanish? How do you say “Can you people just butt out and let me raise my child as I see fit without writing a bunch of idiotic nanny state regulations intended to regulate every last aspect of our lives?”


Child suffering severe psychological trauma at the hands of a pinata

We ran across the latest in nanny state nuttiness on Yahoo.com:

Pinatas: A bad idea for your child’s party?

Piñatas are not a good idea for your child’s party. Children should never hit anything with a stick. Even worse, kids can get piñatas in their favorite character too. Doesn’t anyone slightly cringe at the thought of their child whacking Dora the Explorer or Elmo around with a baseball bat? What is that doing for a child’s character? Getting a flower or car piñata is only slightly less worse.

The article was written by Vanessa Bartlemus, whose bio indicates that she has degrees in Journalism and Psychology.

Either one of which makes us want to whack her with a stick.

Source: Yahoo

- by editor | 16 comments | Share Link